![\"www.archmuziejus.lt](\"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/VAML-IIIS-403-14_academic.jpg\")
<\/a>www.archmuziejus.lt (V. E. \u010cekanauskas collection)<\/p><\/div><\/p>\n
Introduction<\/strong> Interwar period<\/strong> The years of war and after war<\/strong> M. \u0160iup\u0161insko photo<\/p><\/div>\n Protection of historical old towns in the Soviet era<\/strong> Theoretical provisions<\/strong> Other urban heritage<\/strong> The times of change<\/strong> Conclusion<\/strong> Vilt\u0117 Janu\u0161auskait\u0117<\/em><\/p>\n Endnotes Literature<\/strong> Sorry, this entry is only available in Lietuvi\u0173.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":324,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1216","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-publikacijos"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1216","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/324"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1216"}],"version-history":[{"count":21,"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1216\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1240,"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1216\/revisions\/1240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1216"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nProtection of urban heritage is a comparatively new process not only in Lithuania, but the rest of the world. Individual buildings used to be valued, protected and regarded as \u201cheritage\u201d already back in the days of antiquity, while the urban tissue and cities in Europe have undergone a number of transformations already back in the mid and late 20th century by eliminating the ruins of war and later following the principles of modernisation.
\nThe focus on the less obvious value of cities, towns and villages, hidden in their structure and often undistinguished \u201cgrey\u201d buildings, began in the first half of the 20th century when the practice of protecting individual monuments and even discussions between advocates of different restoration paradigms, had already gained momentum in the rest of the world. Discussions about protecting urban heritage continued throughout the entire century until, the early 21st century and changing general understanding of heritage witnessed the development of a Historic Urban Landscape (HUL), which invites to take a holistic look at the historical urban heritage and stop trying to put everything \u201cunder a glass cover\u201d in a museum.
\nThe changes in urban heritage protection tendencies could be noticeable in Lithuania as well, although acquiring specific forms, related to the socio-political situation. Thus, the purpose of this publication is to provide a brief overview of the tendencies of changes in Lithuanian urban heritage protection, from the emergence of protection systems in the Interwar period to this day, discussing not only projects, but also researches and publications, which reveal the change of the concept of urban heritage and its protection.<\/p>\n
\nThe protection of urban heritage in contemporary Lithuania is related to the Interwar period. In those days Vilnius region applied a very advanced and complex (for that time) model of Polish heritage protection \u2014 buildings, \u201ctogether with their natural environment, as well as elements and architecture-related artwork, developed during later periods\u201d were regarded as heritage (Fedorovi\u010d 2012: 88). It should be noted that this approach was unique \u2014 after all, the focus on protecting the visual integrity of cities and complexes, as well as the importance of the environment (context) for understanding the monuments, was introduced only in the Athens Charter of 1931 [1].
\nBased on the almost unchanged structure of streets and quarters, in 1936 Vilnius Old Town was acknowledged as a relic (Kurien\u0117, 2015), valued as an entirety i.e. determining regulations on works not only in individual monuments, but the entire central part of the old town, which meant that private house renovation, their fa\u00e7ade colours and design of advertising signs could be made only according to special methods determined by the conservator (Fedorovi\u010d, 2015:91). The plan of \u201cThe Great Vilnius\u201d was prepared in 1939. This document included ideas like reducing the population density in the old town, moving some of the trade out, building bypasses (Markevi\u010dien\u0117, 1998:156), refusing any ideas of building any new buildings and only revealing the old valuable monuments by demolishing the \u201cugly\u201d 19th century buildings (Ku\u010diauskas 2015:226). Practical heritage protection issues included heritage analysis and several publications on important issues of heritage protection (M. Morelowski, S. Lorentz , J. Remer et al.) (Fedorovi\u010d 2012: 86).
\nCompared to Poland of that time, the issue of heritage protection, as well as protecting urban heritage in Interwar Lithuania was not as important. This can be illustrated by the fact that no individual law on protecting monuments was adopted in twenty years. The state took care only for some individual and the most significant buildings or those that were already falling apart (conservation of the gothic church of Zapy\u0161kis, renovations of Kaunas, Panemun\u0117 and Raudon\u0117 castles). Moreover, the heritage was strictly divided into the national and foreign (with manor settlements as the best example) (\u010cepaitien\u0117 2005:83-91). Thus it becomes obvious that cities and towns inhabited by non-ethnic Lithuanians could have been regarded as objects requiring of \u201cre-Lithuanisation\u201d than cultural heritage that should be protected.
\nNevertheless, after the Republic of Lithuania recovered Vilnius, the tendency of general protection was continued. Discussions regarding the image of the capital featured opinions in favour of preserving the old street structure and restricting \u201cmodern\u201d constructions in the old town, directing them towards the outskirts of the city (Markevi\u010dien\u0117, 1998: 147).<\/p>\n
\nThe principles of the understanding of the old town protection cardinally changed already in 1941. Twisting and turning narrow streets of the old town, as well as a large number of protected ancient monuments stood in a way of building a socialist city. Criticism fell on the concept of conservation, leaving the old town residents in medieval poverty and darkness (Markevi\u010dien\u0117 1998: 157-158), therefore, it was suggested to make capital reconstructions of this part of the city (Markevi\u010dien\u0117 2003: 252), but due to the German occupation these ideas were never implemented.
\nAfter the war the architect Zigmantas \u010caikovskis lead the preparation of the Damage Plan, which said that the number of destroyed houses was only 11, almost destroyed \u2014 only 45 with 125 houses in need of capital renovations, while the remaining 344 were intact or required only minor renovations (Dr\u0117mait\u0117 2010:184). Nevertheless, the modernistic concept of \u201cThe Capital of the Lithuanian SSR\u201d was still to be implemented (Dr\u0117mait\u0117 2010:192) thus promoting on the image of the \u201ccity of ruins\u201d that can be planned anew (with the current Vokie\u010di\u0173 street as the best example). On the other hand, the general provisions were already more reasonable \u2014 in 1947 Vilnius was officially included into the list of 20 historical cities of the USSR (Dr\u0117mait\u0117, Petrulis, Tutlyt\u0117 2012:68) and there were suggestions to \u201ccombine architecture and history with the principles of socialistic planning\u201d (Markevi\u010dien\u0117 2003:253), i.e. modernise the old town by bringing it closer to the standards of a socialistic city (Kumpis 1945). On the other hand, we could not say that demolitions were promoted by only pro-soviet persons \u2014 the already-mentioned M. Morelowski also suggested to demolish damaged buildings \u201cfor urban improvement and restoration of the beauty of the old Vilnius\u201d (Ku\u010diauskas 2015:231).
\nAnother important turning-point happened several years later. When the last Polish specialists lost their jobs or emigrated, the connections with the Polish urban heritage protection tradition were completely lost. In the 1950s the young heritage protection specialists, originating mostly from rural areas, had to create the heritage protection system anew.<\/p>\n<\/a>
\nThe General Plan of Vilnius of 1953, which was based on the \u201cSoviet methods and experience of urban construction\u201d (Miku\u010dianis 2001:57, 65) and ignored the solutions of the Damage Plan (Mici\u016bt\u0117, Glem\u017ea 2015:274), provided wide thoroughfares crossing the old town (\u201cAccording to the plan, a number of 11-15 metre-wide streets were supposed to be widened to 30-35 metres by demolishing low-value buildings\u201d) (Jurginis, Miku\u010dianis 1956:161). The reconstruction of Vokie\u010di\u0173 street took place at the same time. These tendencies received sharp criticism from the architect community and, finally, in 1956 it was decided to prepare a special document for old town planning \u2014 the project for reconstruction of Vilnius Old Town \u2014 which was the first in Lithuania and the entire Soviet Union. Interestingly, this project had two versions (one, the Scientific Restorative Workshop, focused on protection and the other, containing suggestions of Lietprojektas, based on rather radical principles of modernisation) (Janu\u0161kauskait\u0117 2013:138-154). Nevertheless, the restorers’ project was approved in 1959 (led by prof. K. \u0160e\u0161elgis, S. Lasavickas, J. \u0160eibokas), which became a precedent of other analogous projects in Lithuania (reconstruction project for the old town of Kaunas, approved in 1961 (S. \u010cer\u0161kut\u0117, V. Jurk\u0161tas, K. \u0160e\u0161elgis), for Klaip\u0117da \u2014 in 1963 (S. \u010cer\u0161kut\u0117, V. Jurk\u0161tas, V. Par\u010diauskas), for K\u0117dainiai \u2014 in 1963 (S. \u010cer\u0161kut\u0117, V. Jurk\u0161tas) and other states of the Soviet Union.
\nContemporary opinions about this project are controversial and often biased. The majority of heritage protection specialists and architects emphasize that it was innovative and prevented the destruction of the old town (for example, Mi\u0161kinis 1990:82, 129); Glem\u017ea 2002: 30\u201331, 156; Mici\u016bt\u0117, Glem\u017ea 2015: 277\u2013278), but fail to mention the fact that the solutions of creating a socialistic city remained unimplemented, thus romanticizing the project and claiming that there were no plans of sanation at all [2]. Another rather amateurish and radical attitude that has recently started spreading among the public (Verkelis 2015:67-73) creates the opposite opinion \u2014 the architects were inexperienced (although K. \u0160e\u0161elgis was regarded as the most prominent figure in the field in Lithuania) and blindly followed the authorities of that time, intending to destroy the old town. Looking for an objective assessment, it should be remembered that this project, just like the alternative version, belongs to the era, where sanation (reducing building density in order to improve ventilation and insulation of other premises) was as natural as renovation of monuments. It could be said that the authors of the Scientific Restorative Workshop managed to harmonise two contradictory requirements of the project task \u2014 to preserve the city of the past in a modern city \u2014 according to the understanding and possibilities of those days.
\nAfter about a decade Lithuania started talking about the necessity to update the decade-old reconstruction plans. Thus the regeneration projects for the old towns of Vilnius (A. Pilypaitis, E. Pilypaitien\u0117, V. Jurk\u0161tas, etc.), Kaunas (A. Jaku\u010di\u016bnas, V. Jurk\u0161tas, etc.), Klaip\u0117da (\u017d. Ma\u010dionien\u0117, S. Prikockis, N. Zubovien\u0117, V. Zubovas) and Trakai (R. Jurgilas, A. Pilypaitis) were prepared. These documents also contained an ambiguous attitude to historical cities, focusing not only on their historical value, but also their non-compliance with contemporary needs. Although some publications do show some tendency of doing that (Verkelis, 2015), this should not be blamed solely on the occupants’ aspirations to destroy Lithuanian heritage. These tendencies can be noticed in many of the European post-war cities, which embraced the modern dreams of Le Corbusier \u2014 wide streets for fast transportation and enough sunlight for a modern man. Eliminating the consequences of war often resulted in even greater destruction of the old centres, referred to the Italian architect and heritage protection specialist Francesco Siravo, as \u201closses for progress\u201d (Siravo 2009:19). Lithuanian old towns were no exception, although the official opinion declared a complex approach: protecting not only monuments, but also urban and architectural peculiarities, the character of the built-up area, the environment of valuable buildings (Resolution of the CM LSSR of 22 August 1969). The interpretation of interpreting these principles is an issue worth of a separate discussion.<\/p>\n
\nDuring the preparation of the first project of Vilnius Old Town reconstruction Lithuania had not yet developed its own restorers’ guild with its own professional provisions. There was no specific methodology in the entire USSR, although there were some fragmented reports in the press on results of urban reconstruction, achieved in \u201cfriendly countries\u201d, such as Czechoslovakia (The Protocol of the Academic Council… 1958: 114-115). It could be said that namely Czechoslovakia of that time, being an example of heritage protection, was the mediator bringing international ideas to Lithuania, because the \u201csecond generation\u201d projects were based on the opinion that the \u201chistorical environment assessment methods of the Czech specialists is the most complex and has the most substantial theoretical foundation\u201d (Jurk\u0161tas 1994:26). Based on these methods, in the 1970s the architect V. Jurk\u0161tas created the old town building assessment methodology, yet today the results based on that methodology would be shocking, stating that \u201cvaluable\u201d buildings, i.e. architectural monuments, constituted only 10.3 % of Vilnius, 6.8 % of Kaunas and 0.6 % of Klaip\u0117da’s old towns (Jurk\u0161tas 1994:24). Moreover, 40% of the old town buildings in Klaip\u0117da were categorised as \u201cdull and worthless\u201d (Prikockis, Zubovien\u0117, Zubovas xxxx: 25-26), thus giving reason to demolish them based on the principle to save the character of the environment, yet improving individual buildings.
\nAfter the Soviet Union joined the ICOMOS organisation (the architect Jonas Rimantas Glem\u017ea was particularly active there), in 1973 Vilnius hosted an ICOMOS conference, dedicated for \u201cThe issues of protecting of historical city centres and adapting them to new demands of socialist countries\u201d (Hinsch, 1980), attended by representatives of ICOMOS national committees of other socialist countries (USSR, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and the GDR) (Activity of the National ICOMOS Committees… 1976:176), while the presentations praised the opportunities provided by the socialist system. Discussions on the topic of urban heritage protection took place on the national level as well, for example, at the scientific conference \u201cAnalysis and restoration of historical and cultural monuments in the Lithuanian SSR in 1976-1980\u201d, which took place in 1980 and included the issue of revitalising old towns (Kaminskas, 1980). These issues were also analysed in the periodical publication Architectural Monuments [3], as well as the series Urban Monuments of the Lithuanian SSR, published by the Scientific Research Institute of the Lithuanian Civil Engineering and Architecture in 1978-1988.
\nThere was a complex understanding of the environment on the theoretical level, yet most often complexity was regarded as including the engineering and social factors (\u201cof the city environment improvement issues\u201d) into the planning (Jurk\u0161tas, 1994:12). We cannot forget the necessity to adapt to the system, therefore, foreign practice, which \u201clacked focus on adapting the historical environment to the contemporary needs\u201d, received public although not really justified criticism (Jurk\u0161tas 1994:25).<\/p>\n
\nAlthough old towns always were the most visible part of urban heritage, other types of objects were officially protected too. The Law on the Protection of Cultural Monuments of 1967 discusses complexes of buildings (The Law on the Protection of … 1967). It should be noted that the UNESCO World Cultural and Natural Heritage Convention adopted in 1975, used a rather wide definition of building groups rather than urban heritage (World Cultural and Natural Heritage Convention, 1972). The Law on the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Monuments of the Lithuanian SSR, adopted in 1977, features a new concept: \u201curban and architectural monuments\u201d, which includes historical centres, layout of other residential locations, folk architecture and even landscapes (The Law on the Protection and Use of Historical \u2026 1977). Interestingly, the category of urban monument was already included into the List of the Cultural Monuments of the Lithuanian SSR, published in 1973. This category included not only historical old towns, but also town centres and villages. The majority of them (sixty two objects) were attributed to local urban monuments, for example, the old towns of Bir\u017eai, Roki\u0161kis and Tel\u0161iai, the towns of Dieveni\u0161k\u0117s, Kra\u017eiai and Veliuona, with their \u201cstreet networks and special composition of the city\u201d regarded as elements that should be protected (List of the Cultural Monuments of the Lithuanian SSR, 1973: 437\u2013439). Villages in this list were attributed to architectural monuments, they were also categorised into monuments of the republic (Skirvyt\u0117l\u0117, Zervynos) (List of the Cultural Monuments of the Lithuanian SSR, 1973: 353, 355\u2013356) and local (in total thirty five villages, mostly in Auk\u0161taitija nad Dz\u016bkija regions) (List of the Cultural Monuments of the Lithuanian SSR, 1973: 373\u2013436) importance.
\nDifferently from historical cities, wooden heritage was much more ideologically acceptable to the Soviet government. At the same time it was a field for research, since there was a lack of methods and analysis, which include not only individual objects, but also the layout and the spacial structure of villages and towns (\u0160e\u0161elgis, 2000:209-210). Zervynai village in Dz\u016bkija region could be the best example, the research of which firstly refers to professor K. \u0160e\u0161elgis: under his lead in 1970 the village was documented (from its layout to individual buildings, as well as their d\u00e9cor and interior elements) and systematised in an individual publication (\u0160e\u0161elgis 1974). In 1970-1988 the lecturers and students of Vilnius Institute of Civil Engineering, led by K. \u0160e\u0161elgis, analysed 37 villages (\u0160e\u0161elgis 1974:251-253), while the research on urban heritage was implemented by the employees of the Institute of Architecture and Civil Engineering with Algimantas Mi\u0161kinis. Unfortunately, this usually was the only procedure related to protection and decayed objects used to be simply crossed out of the list (\u0160e\u0161elgis 1974:233).
\nAnother rather important type of heritage was the new socialistic urban development. There are no examples of this type in the list of cultural monuments of 1973, but in 1988, when the list was supplemented, it included such famous neighbourhoods of the city as \u017dirm\u016bnai (Registry of Cultural Properties of the Republic of Lithuania: \u017dirm\u016bnai) or the settlement of Juknai\u010diai collective farm. Surely the most famous project of socialistic urban development, included into the list of cultural monuments, is Lazdynai, which received Lenin’s Award in 1974 and was regarded as \u201can example, embodying the achievements of Soviet science and practice of urban development\u201d (Bal\u010di\u016bnas, Vanaga, 1983:13). Of course, there were no special plans for protecting these objects \u2014 being in the list simply meant acknowledgement in the field of Soviet urban development.<\/p>\n
\nIn the 1980s Lithuania witnessed not only a strengthening independence movement, but also sharper criticism towards the Soviet methods of protecting heritage and historical cities \u2014 these topics were often touched by the activists of the independence movement and the old specialists of heritage protection, for example, the open letter of V. Dr\u0117ma written to Lionginas \u0160epetys in 1988 (Dr\u0117ma, 1989: 281-308). The method of sanation received particularly dramatic criticism: \u201cto take care of the old town by destroying its possessions is like taking care of the society by killing people\u201d (Levandauskas, V. 1990: 6).
\nThe national revival in 1988 saw the preparation of another draft project for revitalising Vilnius Old Town (A. Gu\u010das, I. Kliobavi\u010di\u016bt\u0117, M. Bugaili\u0161kyt\u0117, J. Jurevi\u010dien\u0117, M. Ma\u010diulis, D. Sabaliauskien\u0117). It was a document, which became a turning point (it must be noted that the change in regime encountered another challenge \u2014 the emergence of private property) (\u010cepaitien\u0117, 2005: 314). This project got rid of dividing buildings into valuable and invaluable (Gu\u010das, 2009:178), understanding the city as an urban fabric, yet the much more important change was the goal of the project itself \u2014 \u201cRestoration of Vilnius Old Town as the core of the capital of Lithuania\u201d (Gu\u010das, A.). There were plans to recreate the destroyed or damaged layout and build-up of the old town based on the situation of 1940, for example the buildings on Vokie\u010di\u0173 street (Gu\u010das, A. Vilniaus senamies\u010dio regeneravimo projektas). Namely this project was the basis for the nomination file and in 1994 the historical centre of Vilnius was included into the List of World Heritage.
\nThus, just as during the Soviet era, Vilnius Old Town remained the most important object of urban heritage, which received most attention and was the basis of new planning and protection documents \u2014 the first part of the Regulation on the Protection of Vilnius Old Town was approved in 1997 (V. Brezgys, A. Bundonis, A. Degutis, J. Markevi\u010dien\u0117) (Regulation on the Protection of Vilnius Old Town, 1997). According to J. Markevi\u010dien\u0117, the purpose of this document was to combine the \u201cpre-war traditions of Vilnius as landscape and contemporary principles of heritage protection\u201d (Markevi\u010dien\u0117, 2003: 256-257). Nevertheless, it turned out that the document was very difficult to apply in practice and thus received a lot of criticism (Bra\u017e\u0117nait\u0117-Dijokien\u0117 2000: 283; Mici\u016bt\u0117, Glem\u017ea 2015: 283). However, this was the first Lithuanian project, the concepts and principles of which almost perfectly matched the international tendencies.
\nCompared to Vilnius, it seems that during the last decade of the 20th century other historical cities and the more towns and villages, received much less attention or even none. The List of Cultural Monuments of the LSSR was replaced by the Register of Cultural Properties of the Republic of Lithuania. It should be noted that this was the beginning of formal protection of not only the old town, but also newer parts of the city (the New Town, \u017dv\u0117rynas, \u017daliakalnis neighbourhoods), which reflect the changing attitudes towards the 19th century heritage.<\/p>\n
\nA retrospective analysis of the protection of urban heritage in 20th century Lithuania allows to make a conclusion that the process was inconsistent, but merely wavy stages and different methodological and ideological provisions changing one after another: the complex Polish approach, the destructive Soviet urban development, attempts to harmonise modernism with heritage protection and the romantic ideas of the national revival. The theory and discussions during the Soviet era were impossible due to objective reasons \u2014 isolation from the Western world and political restrictions. Thus the practical documents of that time essentially met the theoretical provisions (lack of private property, which made the implementation of any ideas proposed by specialists easier, was definitely the second reason). After the restoration of independence there were different theoretical provisions, which repeated the rapidly changing and finally easily-accessible international tendencies.
\nAt the same time there were sharp contrasts in comparing different regions and types of heritage: Vilnius region, which belonged to Interwar Poland was under particularly progressive legal protection and the practical implementation of theoretical provisions was rather fluent, while the \u201cLithuania of Kaunas\u201d, only one hundred kilometres to the west, was still looking for a definition of Lithuanian heritage that should be protected. A little bit later there was a gap between the major old towns and smaller towns, particularly villages, with the former receiving huge revitalisation projects and others merely documented and then slowly removed from the lists of monuments as decayed. On the other hand, it should be noted that today, in the context of Soviet reorganisation (particularly sanation), lack of protection or passive protection could be regarded as a much lesser evil to the authenticity of the object. After the restoration of independence, the continuation of that tradition remained the major issue \u2014 most of the attention during the last decade of the 20th century was focused on Vilnius Old Town, which was included into the List of UNESCO World Heritage in 1994, i.e. became the celebrity of Lithuanian urban heritage.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>[1]\u00a0The document was adopted in 1931. It is important not to confuse it with the the Charter of Athens adopted by the CIAM congress in 1933, which expressed Le Corbusier’s ideas of modern urban planning. The Charter of Athens from Jokilehto, J., 2005. A History of Architectural Conservation, p. 400\u2013408 [accessed on 10-10-2014]. Access on the internet: <http:\/\/www.iccrom.org\/ifrcdn\/pdf\/ICCROM_05_HistoryofConservation00_en.pdf>.
\n[2]\u00a0A presentation of A. Gu\u010das \u201cThe source, contents and special plan of regeneration of Vilnius Old Town and its use\u201d. Vilnius Old Town Renewal Agency, European Heritage Days, 2015, 17-09-2015.
\n[3]\u00a0For example, vol. VII. Vilnius: Mokslas print house. 1982.<\/p>\n
\nBal\u010di\u016bnas, V.; Vanagas, J. 1983. Lazdynai. Vilnius: Mokslas.
\nBra\u017e\u0117nait\u0117-Dijokien\u0117, D. 2000. Paveldosaugos sampratos kaita XX a. Lietuvoje, Urbanistika ir architekt\u016bra XXIV(2): 76.
\n\u010cepaitien\u0117, R. 2005. Laikas ir akmenys: Kult\u016bros paveldo sampratos moderniojoje Lietuvoje. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla.
\nDr\u0117ma, V. 1989. Apie kult\u016bros paminkl\u0173 b\u016bkl\u0119, i\u0161 Europa. Lietuvos persitvarkymo S\u0105j\u016bd\u017eio almanachas. 1988. Vilnius: Mintis.
\nDr\u0117mait\u0117, M. 2010. Naujas senasis Vilnius: senamies\u010dio griovimas ir atstatymas 1944\u20131959 metais, i\u0161 Jankevi\u010di\u016bt\u0117, G. (ed.). Atrasti Vilni\u0173: skiriama Vladui Dr\u0117mai. Vilnius.
\nDr\u0117mait\u0117, M.; Petrulis, V.; Tutlyt\u0117, J. 2012. Architekt\u016bra sovietme\u010dio Lietuvoje. Vilnius: Vilniaus dail\u0117s akademijos leidykla.
\nFedorovi\u010d, J. 2012. Nekilnojamojo kult\u016bros paveldo apsauga Vilniaus kra\u0161te 1920\u20131939 metais: lenki\u0161ko paveldosaugos modelio rai\u0161ka, Lietuvos istorijos studijos [interactive], No. 29 [accessed on 04-03-2013]. Access on the internet<\/a>.
\nGu\u010das, A. 2009. Paminklotvarkos strategija (1988\u20131994), from R. V. Kaminskas. \u017dmogus ir paminklai: architekt\u016bros ir meno vertybi\u0173 gelb\u0117jimas Lietuvoje. Vilnius: UAB \u201eSavas takas\u201c.
\nGu\u010das, A. Vilniaus senamies\u010dio regeneravimo projektas (1988\u20131992). Samprata (koncepcija) ir sklyp\u0173 planas [digital medium], p. 6.
\nGu\u010das, A. Vilniaus senamies\u010dio regeneravimo projektas, p. 51.
\nHinsch, L. 1980. ICOMOS 1965\u20131980 [interactive], [accessed on 26-11-2014]. Oslo. Access on the internet<\/a>.
\nJanu\u0161auskait\u0117, V. 2013. Socialistinio miesto standart\u0173 ir paveldosaugos dilema: pirmojo Vilniaus senamies\u010dio rekonstrukcijos projekto variantai, from Lietuvos istorijos studijos, vol. 31. Vilnius.
\nJurginis, J.; Miku\u010dianis, V. 1956. Vilnius \u2013 Taryb\u0173 Lietuvos sostin\u0117. Vilnius: Valstybin\u0117 politin\u0117s ir mokslin\u0117s literat\u016bros leidykla.
\nJurk\u0161tas, V. 1994. Senamies\u010di\u0173 regeneracija: architekt\u016bros harmonizavimo problema. Vilnius: Technika.
\nKaminskas, R. (ed.). 1980. Mokslin\u0117 konferencija \u201eIstorijos ir kult\u016bros paminkl\u0173 tyrimas ir restauravimas Lietuvos TSR 1976\u20131980 m.\u201c, \u012fvykusi 1980 m. lapkri\u010dio 19\u201320 d.: prane\u0161im\u0173 tez\u0117s. Vilnius: Paminkl\u0173 konservavimo institutas.
\nKu\u010diauskas, K. 2015. Profesoriaus Mariano Morelowskio kelias \u012f 1944-uosius: vald\u017eios, kolegos vertinimai, Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis, No. 77\u201378.
\nKumpis, J. 1945. Sostin\u0117s Vilniaus atstatymo metmenys, Tiesa, baland\u017eio 8, No. 81(611).
\nKurien\u0117, V. 2015. Jano Bu\u0142hako Vilniaus fotografiniai vaizdai tarpukario Vilniaus paveldosaugos kontekste, Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis, No. 77\u201378, p. 214.
\nLevandauskas, V. 1990. Senamies\u010diai laukia savinink\u0173, Literat\u016bra ir menas, No. 11.
\nThe Law on the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments and their Use of the Lithuanian SSR [interactive], Official Gazette of the Supreme Council and the Government of the Lithuanian SSR, 1977, No. 36-470 [accessed on 18-09-2015]. Access on the internet: <https:\/\/www.e-tar.lt\/portal\/lt\/legalAct\/TAR.577766A701AD>.
\nList of the Cultural Monuments of the Lithuanian SSR. 1973. Vilnius.
\nRegistry of Cultural Properties of the Republic of Lithuania: \u017dirm\u016bnai [interactive], [accessed on 18-09-2015]. Access on the internet<\/a>.
\nArt. 2 of the Law on the Protection of Cultural Monuments of the LSSR, adopted by the Supreme Council of the Lithuanian SSR on 15 April 1967. [interactive], [accessed on 19-09-2015]. Access on the internet: <http:\/\/www3.lrs.lt\/pls\/inter\/w5_show?p_r=883&p_d=8576&p_k=1#ISTATYMAS>.
\nResolution of the CM LSSR of 22 August 1969 No. 353 \u201cRegarding the improvement of protection, management and further use of Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaip\u0117da, K\u0117dainiai and Trakai old towns\u201d [interactive], [accessed 12-09-2015]. Access on the internet<\/a>.
\nMarkevi\u010dien\u0117, J. 1998. Vilniaus kult\u016bros paveldo apsauga Lietuvos Respublikos (1939\u20131940), Soviet\u0173 S\u0105jungos okupacijos ir aneksijos prad\u017eios (1940\u20131941 ir 1944\u20131945) ir nacistin\u0117s Vokietijos okupacijos (1941\u20131944) laikotarpiu, from Lapinskien\u0117, A. (ed.). Vilniaus kult\u016brinis gyvenimas 1939\u20131945: mokslin\u0117s konferencijos \u201eKult\u016brinis Vilniaus gyvenimas 1939\u20131945\u201c, \u012fvykusios 1998 m. spalio 22 d., med\u017eiaga. Vilnius: Lietuvi\u0173 literat\u016bros ir tautosakos institutas.
\nMarkevi\u010dien\u0117, J. 2003. Senamies\u010dio \u012fvaizd\u017eiai Vilniaus kult\u016bros paveldo saugoje XX a.: nuo kra\u0161tovaizd\u017eio iki praeities skeveldr\u0173, from Kult\u016brologija 10: Kult\u016briniai tapatumai ir poky\u010diai. Vilnius: KFMI.
\nMici\u016bt\u0117, V.; Glem\u017ea, J. R. 2015. Vilniaus senamies\u010dio regeneravimo projektai ir reglamentai: j\u0173 raida, reik\u0161m\u0117 ir vertinimas, Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis, No. 77\u201378.
\nMiku\u010dianis, V. 2001. Nor\u0117jau dirbti Lietuvoje. Vilnius: Vilniaus dail\u0117s akademijos leidykla.
\nMi\u0161kinis, A. 1990. Lietuvos urbanistika: istorija, dabartis, ateitis. Vilnius: Mintis.
\nActivities of the ICOMOS national committees in 1973 [interactive], [accessed on 25-11-2014]. Bulletin 1976, p. 176. Access on the internet: <http:\/\/www.international.icomos.org\/publications\/bulletin1976\/bulletin1976-11.pdf>.
\nWorld Cultural and Natural Heritage Convention. 1972. Art. 1. [interactive], [accessed on 17-11-2014]. Access on the internet<\/a>.
\nSiravo, F. 2009. Historic Cities and their Survival in the Globalised World, in Proceedings. World Congress of the Organization of the World Heritage Cities, Quito.
\nProtocol of the meeting of the Scientific Council of the Scientific Restorative Workshop of the Committee of Architecture and Civil Engineering, from K. \u0160e\u0161elgis, J. \u0160eibokas, S. Lasavickas. 1958. Vilnius old town reconstruction project. Explanatory letter Vol. I, Architectural-construction Vilnius: Scientific Restorative Workshop. Vilnius County Archives, f.1019, ap.11, b.4385, l. 14. One of the first descriptions: Janavi\u010dius, B.; Zvolinskas, H. 1958. Czechoslovakian Practice of City Reconstruction, Yearbook of the State Inspectorate of the Protection of Architectural Monuments of the LSSR.
\n\u0160e\u0161elgis, K. (ed.). 1974. Lietuvi\u0173 liaudies architekt\u016bros paminklai. I t. Zervyn\u0173 kaimas. Vilnius.
\n\u0160e\u0161elgis, K. 2000. Gyvenimas. Mokslo darbai. Vilnius: Technika.
\nVerkelis, A. 2015. Kas sugriov\u0117 Vilni\u0173. Vilnius: Briedis.
\nVilnius Old Town protection regultion [interactive] 1997. [accessed on 25-11-2014]. Access on the internet<\/a>.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"